The American Spectator

Mary Louise| 10.20.09 @ 9:48PM

I don't think the Iraq War was worth it when you consider the full range of costs associated with the war. That is, not only the actual cost in blood and treasure, but the opportunity cost in terms of other actions that are no longer feasible because of Iraq, most prominently, our inability to do anything to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. However, I also recognize that since we're already in Iraq, that we should leave in as responsible a manner as possible to make sure that there isn't a climate of violence and civil war that creates a vacuum through which Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups can build bases, not to mention the destabilizing effects in the entire region. As far as Afghanistan, there was a clear connection to Sept. 11, and I also think it's important that we don't leave prematurely and turn over the country to the Taliban.

That's sums it up nicely.

I don't think it's possible to overestimate the confusion, and in the end, discomfort with waging a war like Iraq. It did change us, in my view. We can now credibly be called aggressors and invaders. That's no small thing. I'm not sure a Nation is much different than one life; take a really bad road and while you can recover, retrace, you still can't undo the damage you've done and the way home is long and arduous.

We do need to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan responsibly. I want both Iraqis and Afghanis to look at our boys with admiration and affection, if that's possible.

I’m waiting on forms to register as an Independent. I never thought I would do that, but I am. I’d prefer to register as a Libertarian because I could vote in primaries, but I don’t really know what libertarianism is all about. It seems as fractured as conservatism is or has at least come to be for me. Maybe in future.

I don’t want to seem ungrateful to President Bush. What a lonely path being CIC must be when so much is at stake. So a heartfelt thank you to him and others too.

Red Phillips| 10.20.09 @ 11:50PM

I appreciate the respectful treatment of conservative non-interventionism. And I appreciate the admission that Iraq was wrongheaded although not for the reason that it inhibits our ability to act in Iran which is none of our business either.

"But while, for non-interventionists, Sept. 11 proved that we shouldn't be meddling in world affairs, for me it proved the opposite."

What I don't understand is how people think interventionism helps us. How do you prevent terrorism at home by fighting far off wars? Terrorism at home is manifestly an immigration problem, not a lack of bombing people abroad problem. How many of the 9/11 terrorists were native born citizens?

Did you read Austin Bramwell’s article “Good-bye to All That?” While I don’t agree with everything in the article, the first half where he examines the reasoning behind default conservative support of interventionism is devastating.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/nov/20/00008/

The tacit assumption is that this isn’t just about preventing terrorism at home. It is about remaking the world in some way and maintaining American global hegemony. As such, what is allegedly being prevented is not just another attack on our shores but any threat to American unipolarity. So Iran doesn’t have to represent a direct threat to the US. They just represent a threat to the current balance of power in the Middle East. So each action does not have to directly address terrorism, but the whole is supposed to be part of some grand project that makes the world safer. The problem is that grand projects are not conservative. Grand projects are liberal.

Robert Myers| 10.21.09 @ 12:53AM

Nice piece by Mr. Klein, but I think he knows too much about economics to list every "bailout" package. While a number of the "bailouts" he mentions were questionable, I think he knows some of that bank bailout money saved us from a great deal of pain. You can make the case that we should have experienced more pain, but I'm not sure that's a platform that will appeal to American voters.

Javelineer| 10.21.09 @ 1:06AM

It's pathetic. Hamsher denies that liberals argued that Iraq was distracting from the war in Afghanistan. There must be many, many youtube videos to put the lie to that whopper.

Robert Meyers, the bank bailout money did save us from pain, but not from more pain. The bailouts converted an acute condition into a chronic, degenerative one. Also, the bailouts were anti-capitalist in spirit and effect. That's really bad.

S.L. Toddard| 10.21.09 @ 7:23AM

In 2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force to review the impact which the administration's policies -- specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- were having on Terrorism and Islamic radicalism. They issued a report in September, 2004 (.pdf) and it vigorously condemned the Bush/Cheney approach as entirely counter-productive, i.e., as worsening the Terrorist threat those policies purportedly sought to reduce. It's well worth reviewing their analysis, as it has as much resonance now as it did then (h/t sysprog).

The Task Force began by noting what are the "underlying sources of threats to America's national security": namely, the "negative attitudes" towards the U.S. in the Muslim world and "the conditions that create them":

“Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America's national security and reduced ability to leverage diplomatic opportunities.”

And what most exacerbates anti-American sentiment, and therefore the threat of Terrorism? "American direct intervention in the Muslim world" -- through our "one sided support in favor of Israel"; support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and, most of all, "the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan":

"American direct intervention in the Muslim World has ... elevated the stature
of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

• "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the ... support for ... tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

• "Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that 'freedom is the future of the Middle East' is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.

• "Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination."

Let's just repeat that: "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies." And nothing fuels -- meaning: helps -- the Islamic radicals' case against the U.S. more than ongoing American occupation of Muslim countries:

“Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support.”

For that reason, "a year and a half after going to war in Iraq, Arab/Muslim anger [had] intensified" and the war had thus "weakened support for the war on terrorism and undermined U.S. credibility worldwide" (see. 14-15). Similarly, as of six months into his presidency, Obama had vastly improved perceptions of the U.S. among Western Europeans but -- as Der Spiegel put it -- he "has actually made little progress in the regions where the US faces its biggest foreign policy problems," particularly the Muslim world (other than Indonesia, where Obama spent part of his childhood, and Egypt, where Obama spoke).

We can't combat Terrorism by sending our military into Muslim countries. Doing that only exacerbates the problem, since it inevitably intensifies the anti-American sentiment that enables and fuels the terrorist threat in the first place. All of that is so basic. It's been empirically proven over and over during the last decade. It's not Noam Chomsky or Al Jazeera pointing out these basic truths, but instead, a 2004 Task Force handpicked by Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon to review and assess the Bush administration's anti-terrorism efforts, principally the wars they were waging in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Undoubtedly, there is some small faction of "Islamic radicals" principally motivated by religious fervor which will likely hate the West regardless of what it does, but -- as the 2004 Pentagon-commissioned Report found -- their most potent weapons are American policies that inflame anti-American hatred in the Muslim world, beginning with ongoing wars waged by the U.S. military in Muslim countries. That's so self-evident it shouldn't require a report to document it, but since it seems to, here's a very credible report that does exactly that.

****

More from the great American patriot, stalwart Obama critic, indefatigable champion of the American Constitution and tireless defender of our Civil Liberties Glenn Greenwald:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g.....index.html

S.L. Toddard| 10.21.09 @ 7:37AM

"Libertarians and non-interventionist conservatives argue that a more costly foreign policy abroad undermines the case for fiscal restraint at home"

At issue is the glaring contradiction between advocating for "small government" while demanding that same government rule over, lead and police the world.

"I don't think that such a policy is realistic in a day and age in which men plotting in caves in Afghanistan can send 19 extremists armed with box cutters to smash airplanes into buildings and kill 3,000 civilians on U.S. soil."

This is nonsensical. It is the standard justification for liberal interventionists because it so reliably induces and emotional response in the reader rather than a rational, reasoned one. In my post above, you'll find that Rumsfeld's Defense Science Board Task Force concluded that the first reason men are "plotting in caves in Afghanistan" in the first place is our intervention in Muslim countries, our one-sided support of Israel, and our propping-up oppressive tyrants. If you want to attack the root of the problem, surely we should start there. But if one wants to guard against the effects, clearly the best way to go about it is to prevent terrorists entry into the United States. America can not possibly hope to conquer the globe so thoroughly as to deny terrorists any place on Earth to plot and plan. We have been in Afghanistan for 8 years and still failed miserably to even accomplish that there. What use is denying Afghanistan to terrorists when any terrorist can waltz across our southern border any time of day, any day of the year? What will conquering Afghanistan accomplish that a well-guarded border-wall with Mexico and suspending immigration from the Muslim world would not?